RFG: ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF MILITARY AND CIVIL

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000247 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR-RPM (MONAHAN) DEFENSE FOR OASD/ISA (EURO-NATO); USDAT&L/DUSD-IE (VAUGHT); OASD/NII (HANSEN); EUCOM J4-EN ENGINEER DIV (MC) (CAPT JACKSON); CENTCOM-J4-E (COL GREY); JOINT STAFF J-4 (MR MACKIE),J-5 (LTC SEAMON) E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2011 TAGS: AORC MARR NATO SUBJECT: RFG: ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF MILITARY AND CIVIL BUDGET COMMITTEES REF: A. SRB-A(2007)0005 ¶B. PO(94)40 ¶C. SRB-N(2007)0021-REV1 Classified By: DEFAD EVAN GALBRAITH. REASON 1.4.(B/D) ¶1. (C) The Senior Resource Board (SRB) and Advisory Group of Financial Counsellors (AGFC) will jointly meet in Brussels on April 20 to elect a new national dual-hatted chair of the Military Budget Committee (MBC) and Civil Budget Committee (CBC),agenda at Ref A. Four nations have candidates running for the position; Norway, Turkey, Czech Republic, and France. Mission recommends supporting the Norwegian candidate, Mr. Wang for the post, and will do so unless directed otherwise by COB April 19. END SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE. ¶2. (U) THE ELECTION PROCESS. The election will be conducted initially on a secret weighted preferential vote, with one vote per nation, until only two candidates remain. Nations will assign points to the candidates based upon the preferences, i.e. for the first round, first choice - 4 points, second choice - 3 points, etc. The nation whose candidate received the fewest points will be asked whether they are willing to withdraw their candidate and if so, the process is repeated with three candidates. Once only two candidates remain, a blank ballot is issued and nations will secretly write their preferred candidate. The nation of the SIPDIS candidate with the fewest votes will be asked whether they are willing to withdraw their candidate and if so, the Chairs will ask if all nations are willing to accept the candidate receiving the majority of the votes. The rule of consensus still applies, any nation may elect to not withdraw their candidate despite receiving the fewest points/votes or may block the selection of a candidate receiving the majority of votes. In either event, the Chairs may call for nations to nominate new candidates or refer the issue to the NAC for resolution (Ref B and C). ¶3. (C) THE CANDIDATES. Resumes of all candidates were forwarded to Washington Agencies. Below is Mission,s assessment of each candidate, in preferred order: a. Ehrling Wang (Norway). Wang served on the Infrastructure Committee and was the comptroller of both a NATO military headquarters and a NATO crisis response operation headquarters. He was also reponsible for Armaments Cooperation and Defense and Security Policy at the Norwegian Embassy in Washington. Wang,s qualifications are considerably greater than all other candidates. Further, Wang is well known and respected by Mission Defense personnel and we understand that he is also known by OSD and State personnel in Washington. His views on NATO resource management are fully compatible with U.S. views and Mission finds him open and easy to work with. b. Mehmet Ali Haspolat (Turkey). Haspolat currently serves on the AGFC, MBC, and CBC and as such both Defense and State Mission personnel currently work with him. While he is not as senior and seasoned as Wang, he is a consensus-builder and would be an excellent second choice to Wang. He was instrumental in convincing his recalcitrant authorities to make the biggest shift in the Civil Budget in more than a decade, cutting the Science budget by 40 percent, in line with U.S. views. c. Tomas Perutka (Czech Republic). Perutka has no direct NATO experience and during an interview with Mission personnel, reinforced that he has limited knowledge of NATO military operations and resource management issues. Further, Perutka's English was very haltingly spoken. d. Thierry Le Conte (France). Le Conte currently serves on the SRB and MBC and previously in KFOR. Le Conte was particularly unhelpful when negotiating the NATO Office of Resources, likely delaying a decision by several months. We are not convinced that Paris directed him to act in this manner. Le Conte does not show maturity (we believe he is equivalent to the rank of a military major) in SRB deliberations. France participates in appproximately two thirds of the military budget and approximately one half of the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP). ¶4. (C) RECOMMENDATION: Based upon qualifications, Mission,s personal knowledge of him, and his views on resource management, Mission recommends supporting the Norwegian Candidate, Mr. Ehrling Wang for this dual-hatted Chairman position and Mr. Mehmet Ali Haspolat as the second choice. OLSON